CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 décembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 18 December 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 54592/07 Luciano FERRARA against Italy lodged on 1 December 2007 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the deprivation of the applicant’s land through the application of the constructive-expropriation rule (“ accessione invertita ” or “ occupazione acquisitiva ”) by the domestic courts and the retrospective application of Law no. 662 of 23 December 1996, which reduced the amount of compensation due to the applicant for the dispossession of his property. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been deprived of his possessions in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see, amongst many other authorities, Guiso-Gallisay v.   Italy , no. 58858/00, 8 December 2005; Rivera and di Bonaventura v.   Italy , no. 63869/00, 14 June 2011; and De Caterina and Others v. Italy , no. 65278/01, 28 June 2011)?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was there interference by the legislature with the administration of justice designed to influence the judicial determination of a dispute on account of the retrospective application to their case of Law no.   662/1996?